2025:HHC:40961 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 408 of 2025 Decided on : 01.12.2025 Ajay Kumar Sharma and another …Petitioners Versus Subhash Chand …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondent : Respondent proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.09.2025. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 30.09.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala, in CMA No. 34 of 2022, in terms whereof, application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), by the petitioners herein, was dismissed and judgment dated 01.05.2025, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:40961 18-D/XIV/2024, in terms whereof, Appeal filed by the petitioners herein, under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the CPC, was also dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court were not sustainable in light of the fact that both the learned Courts below erred in not appreciating that in terms of the revenue record late mother of the petitioners was reflected in possession thereof and that being the case, the findings returned by the learned Courts below that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land, were perverse findings. He accordingly prayed that the on this count, the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, are liable to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 4. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the application 3 2025:HHC:40961 filed by the petitioners under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, by returning the following findings:- “7. In the present case, the applicants have claimed themselves to be owners of the possession in the suit land, on the basis of alleged allotment of the land in favour of their mother Vidya Devj. However, they have not produced any such record of allotment. Moreover, in the Jamabandi for the year 2017-18, the names of applicants is nowhere recorded. Although the name of Vidya Devi (mother of the applicants) is recorded in the column of possession, but it is without any status. Admittedly, Vidya Devi had expired long ago in the year 1995. Despite this, her name featuring in the revenue record which shows that the record is prima-facie incorrect. Therefore, the plea of the respondent that Vidya Devi was a mere trespasser on the suit land and the applicants are also mere trespassers, appears to have some substance. It may be noted here that the applicants have not come up with specific plea as to under which provision of law of Government scheme the land was allotment to their mother and as to why they have not produced any record of such allotment. Besides this, the applicants have also pleaded that they sold some portion of the suit land to someone, but neither the name of the vendee nor any details thereof like date of sale, consideration amount, etc. have been mentioned. No copy of any sale deed has been produced. This also shows that the pleadings of the applicants are vague and the same are not supported by any concrete material. It also supports the plea of the respondent that the mother 4 2025:HHC:40961 of the applicants was mere trespasser in the suit land and therefore, she could not execute any registered sale deed in respect of the same. The respondent has claimed that he himself was also in possession of a part of the suit land. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants are in exclusive possession. Moreover, as already above, their pleadings are vague and unspecific. Even the exact location of the impugned path has not been shown. The suit is admittedly owned by the State of H.P. Despite this, it is not arrayed as a party to the suit. In these facts and circumstances, the applicants have failed to show prima-facie case in their favour.” 5. Learned Appellate Court has upheld the findings returned by the learned Trial Court by returning the following findings:- “12. The applicants have placed on record the copy of Khatauni Bandobast 1973-74 and the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2017-18. From the perusal of the copy of Khatauni Bandobast, it is transpired that Vidya Devi is in possession of the suit land. The applicants have claimed that the suit land was allotted to their mother, Vidya Devi in the year 1968. There is no reference of such allotment of the suit land to Vidya Devi in this Khatauni Bandobast during settlement. Similarly, Vidya Devi is reflected to be in possession of the suit land in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2017-18 despite the fact that Vidya Devi expired in the year 1995. The names of the applicants are nowhere reflected in this Jamabandi. Though Vidya Devi expired in the year 1995 but her name continued to 5 2025:HHC:40961 be reflected in the revenue record without any status shows that the revenue record is not correct. Regarding the alleged allotment, of the suit land to Vidya Devi the applicants have not produced any record on the file to come to the prima facie conclusion that in fact the suit land was allotted to their mother Vidya Devi. Thus, the possession of Vidya Devi was merely that of a trespasser. Further regarding the alleged sale deed in favour of an unknown person and existence of path there is no prima facie material on record to appreciate such contentions of the applicants. Under these circumstances, the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the applicants have neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience in their favour. Re the given facts and circumstances, the applicants are not going to suffer any irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners though argued that that in terms of the jamabandi on record, Vidya Devi, mother of the petitioners, was recorded in the column of possession, however, it could not be demonstrated that in what capacity her name was there in the jamabandi for the year 2017-18. It could not be demonstrated as to how this entry was there in the jamabandi for the year 2017-18 despite the fact that Smt. Vidya Devi had expired as far back as in the year 1995. Learned Trial Court also made an observation that nothing was 6 2025:HHC:40961 there on record to demonstrate as to in what capacity the petitioners were in possession of the suit land if they indeed were in possession thereof. Learned Court held that the petitioners had not produced any record of any allotment in their favour made of the land by the Government and if the suit land was sold to them by someone then it was not pleaded as to who sold it, when did the sale took place and what was the extent of the sale transaction and date etc. 7. Learned Appellate Court upheld these findings by observing that it was evident from the record that though Vidya Devi expired in the year 1995, her name continued to be reflected in the revenue record without any status, which demonstrated that the revenue record was incorrect. Learned Appellate Court also reiterated that the alleged allotment of the land to Vidya Devi could not be demonstrated by producing any material on record even for the prima faccie satisfaction of the Court. On these basis, learned Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Courts below do not call for any 7 2025:HHC:40961 interference. Even before this Court, it could not be demonstrated as to how the name of Vidya Devi was being reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2017-18 when she indeed had expired in the year 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any document from which it could be inferred as to on what basis the petitioners were in the alleged possession of the suit land. That being the case, as the findings returned by the learned Courts below, have been returned by them on the basis of the material on record and in the absence of any perversity being demonstrated therein, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)